4.8 Article

Microbial spatial footprint as a driver of soil carbon stabilization

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-11057-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation's Geobiology and Low Temperature Geochemistry Program [1630399]
  2. Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research [DE-SC0018409, DE-FC02-07ER64494]
  3. National Science Foundation Long-term Ecological Research Program at the Kellogg Biological Station [DEB 1637653]
  4. Michigan State University AgBioResearch
  5. DAAD-German Academic Exchange Service' program Research Stays for University Academics and Scientists, 2017 [57314018]
  6. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  7. Division Of Earth Sciences
  8. Directorate For Geosciences [1630399] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing the potential of soil to store carbon (C) is an acknowledged and emphasized strategy for capturing atmospheric CO2. Well-recognized approaches for soil C accretion include reducing soil disturbance, increasing plant biomass inputs, and enhancing plant diversity. Yet experimental evidence often fails to support anticipated C gains, suggesting that our integrated understanding of soil C accretion remains insufficient. Here we use a unique combination of X-ray micro-tomography and micro-scale enzyme mapping to demonstrate for the first time that plant-stimulated soil pore formation appears to be a major, hitherto unrecognized, determinant of whether new C inputs are stored or lost to the atmosphere. Unlike monocultures, diverse plant communities favor the development of 30-150 mu m pores. Such pores are the micro-environments associated with higher enzyme activities, and greater abundance of such pores translates into a greater spatial footprint that microorganisms make on the soil and consequently soil C storage capacity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据